Believe!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-10-2017, 04:01 PM
RE: Believe!
(17-10-2017 03:38 PM)Eagle Wrote:  
(17-10-2017 03:32 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Yes they do. What you don't seem to realize is that you are one of these people. Your interpretation of the Bible is no more "special" than anyone else's.

Aside from that, it's impossible to know exactly what the Bible "does say". It was written thousands of years ago in languages that are no longer in use today, in a culture that was radically different from ours, and we have none of the original manuscripts -- only copies that are inevitably corrupted. It's impossible not to "interpret" it.
That's a lot of assumptions, but no, I read the Bible as it is. I struggled to find a church for a long time after I became born again, because, heresies are everywhere.

The Bible is not corrupted haha, that is a LONG debate which I would not get into here (no offence, but truthfully, you make far too simplistic comments to discuss this in great detail, and of course trolls keep on popping up haha). But, in short, the King James Bible is not corrupt, but modern versions are, so if you want to read a Bible - get a KJV! Big Grin

So, not a christian then, but rather a practitioner of biblotry, eh? If your god actually existed he'd cast you into eternal flames for worshiping an idol (the KJV) above him. Good thing for you he's no more real than Thor or Jupiter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stefan Mayerschoff's post
17-10-2017, 04:11 PM
RE: Believe!
(17-10-2017 03:52 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(17-10-2017 03:38 PM)Eagle Wrote:  I read the Bible as it is.

.....

But, in short, the King James Bible is not corrupt, but modern versions are, so if you want to read a Bible - get a KJV! Big Grin

You contradict yourself. To read the Bible "as it is", you would have to read the original Hebrew and Greek (assuming you could find original manuscripts, which no longer exist). The KJV is not the Bible "as it is" -- it's a translation of the Bible, and any translation is inherently imperfect -- even a translation between two modern languages. When the original languages are dead ones, and the translation is into an archaic version of English, it only multiplies the inherent problems of translation.

"The King James Bible is not corrupt" is one of the funniest things I've read all day. (1) It couldn't possibly not be corrupt (nor could any translation); (2) I've read it, and experienced some of its problems firsthand. It's possibly better in some ways than some modern translations (it's my own favorite translation, but this is for literary reasons), but it's far from perfect. There is no such thing as a "perfect" translation of anything.

(17-10-2017 03:53 PM)Free Wrote:  
(17-10-2017 03:38 PM)Eagle Wrote:  But, in short, the King James Bible is not corrupt, but modern versions are, so if you want to read a Bible - get a KJV! Big Grin

Actually, if you really want to read the bible with even greater accuracy, you would need to learn Latin and Koine Greek. If you want to fully understand what you are reading, you would need to become very educated in ancient Christian/Roman/Jewish history.

You see, what you read in all English translation is not a translation at all, but rather it is an "interpretation." However, with older versions such as the King James, you have a scholarship that is greatly outdated since it is some 500 years old.

Scholarship has greatly improved over the centuries as new discoveries and new knowledge has become unearthed, which provides far greater understanding of past events than what could ever be understood at the time the KJV was written.

English itself was only about 300 years old at the time the KJV was written, and the ability to combine various areas of scholarship simply did not exist.

Does this make sense to you?
Yes it makes sense, ie the rationale, the 'todays scholars' etc, is a perfect example of people putting their egos before wisdom.

I typed up a fair amount of a lengthy post to explain it to you, but, I decided against it, I don't think you are ready for it yet -or if not you personally, the multitude of the forum and their 'I know everything' responses/insults etc by the hundreds haha, so maybe another time, I think I will.

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” 1 Corithians 3:19

There is a difference between ego, man made reasoning (which typically is measured with IQ, but other things too), and wisdom. The above scripture from the Bible is referring to 'scholarly' men in this particular example: They esteem their education and themselves highly, blinding themself to the obvious.

But, in short, the Bible was preserved by scribes, some of whom couldn't even read, who were tasked to making exact copies of the scriptures. This isn't some historic story like Ulysses or something, people did frequently sacrifice their lives for these scriptures.

It's the modern scholars today who are using discarded scriptures for Bibles, they apply 'textual criticism' and such things - man made constructs, treating the Bible as if it were any other book, but that is not the case. The modern Bibles are based on two main scriptures - one which was found in a bin in a monestary and another which was found discarded in the Vatican. They were thrown away for a reason: they were duds.

That's the short version. All the best.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2017, 04:13 PM
RE: Believe!
(17-10-2017 03:26 PM)Eagle Wrote:  The dictionary,
cult:
'a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object'

Any religious veneration which is directed toward a figure (ie a person) or an object (ie statue, money etc) is not directed towards God. The Bible is Gods word, so yes, Catholicism and many others are cults, because they move to a figure or an object, and not towards God's word.

mordant, you don't have to try to be really intelligent and come up with seemingly great and complex ideas, it's much more intelligent and straight forward to present things as they are. ie the definition of what a cult is, rather than trying to formulate ones own. You've more chance of getting it right using the dictionary definition, than trying to re-invent the wheel Wink
That WAS the dictionary definition. More exactly, as I explicitly said, the RELEVANT one to this discussion.
The one you cherry-picked is really synonymous with "religion" since it is simply a "system of religious veneration". Christianity is directed to a specific figure (Christ). Cult vs religion is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2017, 04:16 PM
RE: Believe!
(17-10-2017 04:01 PM)Stefan Mayerschoff Wrote:  
(17-10-2017 03:38 PM)Eagle Wrote:  That's a lot of assumptions, but no, I read the Bible as it is. I struggled to find a church for a long time after I became born again, because, heresies are everywhere.

The Bible is not corrupted haha, that is a LONG debate which I would not get into here (no offence, but truthfully, you make far too simplistic comments to discuss this in great detail, and of course trolls keep on popping up haha). But, in short, the King James Bible is not corrupt, but modern versions are, so if you want to read a Bible - get a KJV! Big Grin

So, not a christian then, but rather a practitioner of biblotry, eh? If your god actually existed he'd cast you into eternal flames for worshiping an idol (the KJV) above him. Good thing for you he's no more real than Thor or Jupiter.
Are you purposefully trying to be disruptive?

I use the KJV as my Bible, I worship God. That's pretty obvious to tell the difference unless you are being purposefully disruptive, but, if you think your comment is intelligent, please think twice before posting.

Or, well, OK, maybe you really do think you are right, that's OK, there you go, there's your answer! You could stop putting words into my mouth haha Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2017, 04:18 PM
RE: Believe!
(17-10-2017 04:13 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(17-10-2017 03:26 PM)Eagle Wrote:  The dictionary,
cult:
'a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object'

Any religious veneration which is directed toward a figure (ie a person) or an object (ie statue, money etc) is not directed towards God. The Bible is Gods word, so yes, Catholicism and many others are cults, because they move to a figure or an object, and not towards God's word.

mordant, you don't have to try to be really intelligent and come up with seemingly great and complex ideas, it's much more intelligent and straight forward to present things as they are. ie the definition of what a cult is, rather than trying to formulate ones own. You've more chance of getting it right using the dictionary definition, than trying to re-invent the wheel Wink
That WAS the dictionary definition. More exactly, as I explicitly said, the RELEVANT one to this discussion.
The one you cherry-picked is really synonymous with "religion" since it is simply a "system of religious veneration". Christianity is directed to a specific figure (Christ). Cult vs religion is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
I clicked on your link and it took me to the EXACT definition I posted. Maybe you have different Google than me.

'a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.'
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2017, 04:19 PM (This post was last modified: 17-10-2017 05:14 PM by Anjele.)
RE: Believe!
It would appear there is some sort of contest to see who can start the most ignorant threads.

Sadly, eagle isn't the only one in the running for that title.

See here they are, the bruises, some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. -JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2017, 04:20 PM
RE: Believe!
(17-10-2017 04:00 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(17-10-2017 03:38 PM)Eagle Wrote:  But, in short, the King James Bible is not corrupt, but modern versions are, so if you want to read a Bible - get a KJV! Big Grin

FFS. The KJV was created by the Anglican church, which was founded by King Henry VIII so he could get a divorce. Because he couldn't legally murder any more wives.

Congratulations. You have successfully lowered the bar once again.

It's actually a bit more complicated than that. The primary creation of Henry VIII's Anglican Church was the Book of Common Prayer. There were already several competing English translations of the Bible. King James commissioned the KJV quite a few years later, aiming to combine the best features of the earlier translations to produce a single new version that (it was hoped) would be used by everyone (as it turned out, that happened beyond their wildest dreams). Something like 90% of the KJV is taken verbatim from one or the other of the existing translations, but there is also substantial new content. In many ways, it is specifically Protestant (as opposed to the contemporaneous Catholic Douay-Rheims translation), but I'm not sure that it's specifically Anglican. And it's still a very good translation -- but not without its problems.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
17-10-2017, 04:24 PM
RE: Believe!
(17-10-2017 04:20 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(17-10-2017 04:00 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  FFS. The KJV was created by the Anglican church, which was founded by King Henry VIII so he could get a divorce. Because he couldn't legally murder any more wives.

Congratulations. You have successfully lowered the bar once again.

It's actually a bit more complicated than that. The primary creation of Henry VIII's Anglican Church was the Book of Common Prayer. There were already several competing English translations of the Bible. King James commissioned the KJV quite a few years later, aiming to combine the best features of the earlier translations to produce a single new version that (it was hoped) would be used by everyone (as it turned out, that happened beyond their wildest dreams). Something like 90% of the KJV is taken verbatim from one or the other of the existing translations, but there is also substantial new content. In many ways, it is specifically Protestant (as opposed to the contemporaneous Catholic Douay-Rheims translation), but I'm not sure that it's specifically Anglican. And it's still a very good translation -- but not without its problems.
This was what I was referring to: The seeming ability for someone to assume they are an expert on everything. Think about 'commander DATA', reciting facts do not have any use without an understanding, even if the facts stated happen to be right.

Why, politicians both state facts which might both might right, but there is an understanding required also to make the correct sense and decision.

Atheists try to make a god out of facts, but it's blinkered through a lens, resulting in foolishness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2017, 04:30 PM
RE: Believe!
(17-10-2017 04:16 PM)Eagle Wrote:  Are you purposefully trying to be disruptive?

The irony.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze


[Image: uj9MSSa.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2017, 04:34 PM
RE: Believe!
(17-10-2017 04:11 PM)Eagle Wrote:  
(17-10-2017 03:52 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  You contradict yourself. To read the Bible "as it is", you would have to read the original Hebrew and Greek (assuming you could find original manuscripts, which no longer exist). The KJV is not the Bible "as it is" -- it's a translation of the Bible, and any translation is inherently imperfect -- even a translation between two modern languages. When the original languages are dead ones, and the translation is into an archaic version of English, it only multiplies the inherent problems of translation.

"The King James Bible is not corrupt" is one of the funniest things I've read all day. (1) It couldn't possibly not be corrupt (nor could any translation); (2) I've read it, and experienced some of its problems firsthand. It's possibly better in some ways than some modern translations (it's my own favorite translation, but this is for literary reasons), but it's far from perfect. There is no such thing as a "perfect" translation of anything.

(17-10-2017 03:53 PM)Free Wrote:  Actually, if you really want to read the bible with even greater accuracy, you would need to learn Latin and Koine Greek. If you want to fully understand what you are reading, you would need to become very educated in ancient Christian/Roman/Jewish history.

You see, what you read in all English translation is not a translation at all, but rather it is an "interpretation." However, with older versions such as the King James, you have a scholarship that is greatly outdated since it is some 500 years old.

Scholarship has greatly improved over the centuries as new discoveries and new knowledge has become unearthed, which provides far greater understanding of past events than what could ever be understood at the time the KJV was written.

English itself was only about 300 years old at the time the KJV was written, and the ability to combine various areas of scholarship simply did not exist.

Does this make sense to you?
Yes it makes sense, ie the rationale, the 'todays scholars' etc, is a perfect example of people putting their egos before wisdom.

I typed up a fair amount of a lengthy post to explain it to you, but, I decided against it, I don't think you are ready for it yet -or if not you personally, the multitude of the forum and their 'I know everything' responses/insults etc by the hundreds haha, so maybe another time, I think I will.

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” 1 Corithians 3:19

There is a difference between ego, man made reasoning (which typically is measured with IQ, but other things too), and wisdom. The above scripture from the Bible is referring to 'scholarly' men in this particular example: They esteem their education and themselves highly, blinding themself to the obvious.

But, in short, the Bible was preserved by scribes, some of whom couldn't even read, who were tasked to making exact copies of the scriptures. This isn't some historic story like Ulysses or something, people did frequently sacrifice their lives for these scriptures.

It's the modern scholars today who are using discarded scriptures for Bibles, they apply 'textual criticism' and such things - man made constructs, treating the Bible as if it were any other book, but that is not the case. The modern Bibles are based on two main scriptures - one which was found in a bin in a monestary and another which was found discarded in the Vatican. They were thrown away for a reason: they were duds.

That's the short version. All the best.

^^^None of this is based in fact. You certainly are a Bible worshiper, as opposed to a Christian. You worship a book, and that book has become your god.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: